C-/ ^ ^^ ^.-.^!'?^^ ^S'lX^-ZX-^t-'^ 



^;t^^^:^'^^t^ / ^ ^:^2> 



E 713 
^ .B82 

Copy 1 




What is to be done with the Philippines? 



SPEECH 



HON. W, G. BRANTLEY, 



OF GEORGIA, 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1900. 



,»»»•<>•, 






% 



W^A-SHINGTON. 



1900. 
4005 ^.'\~&. 






d Off.] 



L 



SPEECH 

Ol' 

HON. WILLIAM G. BRANTLEY. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, and having under consideration the bill (H.R.8345) to regulate the 
trade of Puerto Ri(;o, and for other purposes- 
Mr. BRANTLEY said: 

Mr. Chairman: What is to be done with the Philippines? What 
is to be their fixture? What is to be the policy of the United States 
Government with reference to them? 

These are <iuestions that interest and concern many people. 
They deeply concern not only the Filipinos, but as well the people 
of America, and the answers to them are anxiously awaited by 
the people of the civilized world. Their importance can not be 
overstated or overestimated. Upon the answers to them depend 
the hopes, the aspirations, and the destiny of a people struggling 
for liberty: and, more than this, there are many who believe that, 
unless all history be false, the final answers to these questions will 
determine the fate of a Republic more than an hundred years old, 
and will settle forever the question as to whether or not a free 
people can perpetuate self-government or whether such a govern- 
ment must in time perish from the earth. If we concede the 
gravity of these questions— and all must concede it, no matter 
from what standpoint they are viewed — it is important to know 
who can answer them, and it is doubly important to know what 
the answers will be. 

It is not questioned or denied that the power to answer these 
questions is vested in Congress and in Congress alone. The or- 
ganic law so provides, and the President in his last annual mes- 
sage to us directed our attention to them. He said: 

The future government of the Philippines rests with the Congress of the 
United States. 

He further said: 

Until Congress shall have made known the formal expression of its will, I 
shall use the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes to 
u])hold the sovereignty of the United States in these distant islands. 

In an address delivered by him in Boston, on February 16, 1899, 
he also said: 

This whole subject is now with Congress; and Congress is the voice, the 
conscience, and the judgment of the American people. 

It does not occur to me, therefore, that, viewing these questions 
from the standpoint of the Constitution and the President's ut- 
terances, that it is inappropriate for a member of this House to 
discuss them, and not only to discuss them, but to suggest the 
answers that should be made. Indeed, I believe it not only appro- 
priate so to do, but, in my opinion, a solemn responsibility rests 
upon this Congress not only to discuss these questions, but after 
discussion to act, and declare to the Filipinos, the Americans, and 
4U95 3 



all the world what the policy ot this great Government with ref- 
erence to the Philippines is. 

On December 10, iS'js, a treaty of peace with Spain was agi'eed 
upon, and on I'\'bruary 6, 1899. that treaty was ratified by the 
United States Senate, and the war with Spain which had, for all 
practical purposes ended months before, then became theoretically 
and legally at an end, and, so far as the Congress was concerned, 
the United States was at peace with all the world. Under that 
treaty, so ratified, it was provided that: 

Tlie civil right.s and political status of the native inhaliitants of the terri- 
tories hereby ceiled to the United States shall be determined by the Congress. 

There are some who insist that this provision of the treaty is 
the supreme law for the guidance of Congress, and that, under 
this provision. Congress has unrestrained power to i)rovide such 
civil rights and such political status for the Filipinos as tiie will 
of Congress may deem proper to jirovide. I do not subscribe to 
any such doctrine, for I believe that, under this provision of the 
treaty. Congress must fix the civil rights and the political status 
of the Filipinos in accordance with the terms and the limitations 
of the Constitucion. 

But, passing this question for the present, I would call attention 
to the fact that this treaty is more than twelve mouths old: the 
responsibility that it puts upon the Congress was placed there 
more than a year ago. and yet Congress has talcen no step to 
formulate a policy, or to meet its responsibility, or to discharge 
the duties that lie at its door. 

It is said, however, that Congress can do nothing, because the 
Filipinos are in a state of insurrection, because a state of war 
between them and us exists, and that until it shall have been 
ended and peace restored Congress should do nothing. As an 
humble member of this House I dissent from this projiosition. 

If we concede that the President, through proclamations and by 
commissioners, has earnestly endeavored to persuade the Fili- 
pinos to lay down their arms and to accept the sovereignty of the 
United States, we are still confronted with the fact that the Presi- 
dent was and is without power to announce to the Filipino people 
a definite policy or to pledge the faith of this country to anj' given 
policy, because this country can have no policy and the President 
can commit it to none until Congress has declared one. 

General Otis, in a letter addressed by him on January 9, 1899, 
to the insurgent leader, Aguinaldo, used this language expressive 
of the situation. After stating that a treaty of peace with Spain 
had been agreed upon, he said: 

This treaty acknowledgrment, with the conditions which accompany it, 
awaits ratification by the Senate of the United States, and the action of its 
CouK^r(!Ss must also lie secun-d before the Executive of that Government can 
proclaim a deflnite policy. That policy must conform to the will of the peo- 
ple of the United States, expressed through its repre.sentativos in Congress. 

General Otis also informs us, and I quote his exact language as 
found in his report: 

Repeated conferences were held with influential insurgents, whose chief 
aim appeared to 1 )0 to obtain some authoritative expres.sion on the intent of the 
Unitird Slati's with regard to the Philippines, and complained that they were 
nnablo to ilis'-over any one who could sprakox cathedra. Thi>y assi'rted that 
their Malolos arrangement was a government de facto, whicli had the right 
to ask an oxpres.sion of intent from the United States Government. 

Is it any wonder that the Filipinos could find no one that could 
speak ex cathedra as to the intent of this GovernmentV Is it any 
wonder that up to this hour they have been unable to find anyone 

•1095 



who could so speak? The only persons who could so speak have 
remained silent, and they are silent until now. This Congress 
should have spoken long ago. It should speak now. In the light 
of all that has developed since this warfare began who can say. 
if the Congress had measured up to its duty and declared the in- 
tent of this Government to be to give the Filipinos their independ- 
ence, that all the rich American blood and all the treasure that 
has been poiired out in these islands could not have been saved? 

Who can say that such a declaration now would not stop the 
sacrifice of life and the drain upon the resources of our people? 
It may be a mere theory that such a declaration would have such 
an effect, and yet it is a theory well founded upon the knowledge 
our people have of the motives and inspirations that move any 
people who strive for liberty and independence. It is a theory 
well worth the trjdng if we have in our hearts the determination 
arid the intention now or in the future to accord independence to 
the Philippine Islands. [Applause.] 

Again, who can say that a declaration from the Congress before 
this unhappy warfare began that it was the intent of tliis Govern- 
ment to permanently retain the Philippines would not have avoided 
a war? Who can say that such a declaration now would not end 
it? If the Filipinos knew that this Government, by its Congress, 
had fully determined to subdue and subject them as a dependent 
people, is it beyond reason that dismay and discouragement would 
seize them and that they in despair would cease the conflict? 
They have been told that Congress alone has the power to announce 
such a determination, and they know that Congress has never an- 
nounced it; they know that the treaty of peace left their civil 
rights and political status to be determined by the Congress, and 
they know that Congress has never determined them; they know 
that their future is in the hands of a free people governing a great 
Republic, and is it too much for them to expect and to believe 
that the free will give freedom? 

If they so expect and believe, will not this belief continue to 
nerve them to give battle, and will not that hope continue to ani- 
mate them until the hope itself is denied them? I am ignorant of 
the motives that impel gentlemen of the majority in this House 
to maintain their position of inaction on this great question, and 
I do not undertake to impugn their motives or the motives of any- 
one. I confess my surprise, however, confronted, as we are. with 
the possibility always of bringing this war to a close by a positive 
declaration of policy, that no policy is declared. I confess my 
surprise that, with a duty and a responsibility upon us to act and 
to act quickly, this Congress does not stir. 

All that Congress has done has been by indirection. No affirma- 
tive action has been taken. 

When the House voted to pay the $20,000,000 to Spam that the 
treaty provided for, all amendments looking to a declaration of 
policy were refused. The House was unable to declare one. 
Many members voted to pay the twenty millions not because they 
approved the acquisition of the Philippines, but because they be- 
lieved that the Constitution vesting the iTesident and the Senate 
with the power to make this treaty, and the treaty having been 
made, the same became an obligation of the Government that we 
were in honor bound to pay. For the same reason, without divi- 
sion of party, war supplies have been voted. Our soldiers with- 
out their volition were in the Philippines. They were being at- 
tacked. We could not desert them. Our flag was bemg fired 

4095 



6 

upon; whether rightly or wrongly we could not stop to Inquire. 
We simply went to its rescue. (Applause.] 

But. throughout it all. Congress has never announced a fixed 
iritontion or ever declared a settled policy with reference to the 
Filipinos. 

Is it possible that we are afraid to act because some think that 
any action by us or any declaration by us affirming our allegiance 
to the principles of freedom would encourage an enemy against 
the United States? Are we to abdicate our functions and sit with 
mute lips and folded hands and await a policy to be formulated 
and declared by the President and submitted for our ratification? 
What has come over the once proud spirit of American indi'pend- 
ence— a spirit that has reached its highest acclaim in these halls — 
that we should sit and await the directions or instructions from 
anyone save the great bodj' of the people? 

Mr. Chairman, one set of commissioners have already been to 
the Philippine Islands, and have talked with the insurgent leaders 
and citizens of these islands, and have issued proclamations an- 
nouncing some of the purposes of this Government. They went 
without knowledge of the intention of Congress and without its 
instructions. They have returned and have presented us with 
voluminous literature as to the result of their visit. We see it 
stated in the newspapers that another commission is about to be 
appointed to visit these islands for the purpose of inaugurating a 
civil government there. What kind of a civil government will 
this new commission organize? Where will it get any authority 
expressive of the will of the American people to organize any gov- 
ernment? I insist, Mr. Chairman, that if this new commission 
goes, it should go clothed with authority from us, and should go 
prepared and fortified to declare in unmistakable terms what the 
intent of this Government is, and go with authority to establish 
the government there that this Congress has determined should be 
established. 

There has been considerable talk about our duty to the flag and 
our duty to uphold the President. Indeed, some have gone so far 
as to confound the President and the flag as one and the same, and 
the proposition has been broadly hinted at that one could not dis- 
agree with the President without being disloyal to the flag. I feel 
sure that no gentleman in this House has indulged in any such 
talk or indorses any such sentiment. There is but one flag for all 
of us. and we all love it. [Applause.] This has been demon- 
strated in this House time and again when, without a dissenting 
vote, we have voted men and munitions of war for the purpose of 
defending it. We who hold commissions here, however, are in 
our sphere charged with as much responsibility as is the President. 
Indeed, so far as this war is concerned, there is more responsibility 
upon the Congress than upon the President. We alone have the 
power to declare war; and it necessarily follows that if we sit idly 
by and allow the President to wage a war, we become responsible 
for it, whether we approve it or not. We have not yet reached the 
period in the American life where freedom of speech can be denied 
either to the people or to their representatives, and more than a 
hundred years ago we repudiated the doctrine of tyrants that *• the 
king c;au do no wrong." and surely there are none now in free 
America who are willing to invoke such a declaration. 

We have the right to differ from the President. We have the 
right to differ with each other. We should be able to disagree 

409.'> 



without charging "treason " or " disloyalty." No great question 
was ever solved by crimination and recrimination. We should 
discuss the great questions confronting us with all the solemnity 
that their importance demands. 

In my opinion the questions presented by the Philippine problem 
are not political. They are national and fundamental. They go 
to the fireside in the home of every citizen. They concern the 
traditions and the policies of this Government from its foundation 
until now. They involve the Declaration of Indepcnd<^nce, the 
Constitution, and all our glorious past. They have to do with the 
lives and the health of thousands of American soldiers bearing 
arms beneath the American flag. They should be discussed from 
the standpoint of free American citizenship, and not from the 
standpoint of any political party. 

Mr. Chairman, in the limited time at my disposal I can not hope 
to discuss all the phases that the Philippine question presents, nor 
can I hope to discuss any one of them at the length and with the 
completeness that its importance deserves. I will not speculate 
upon what ought to have been done. 1 wish to talk of what should 
be done now. I submit two propositions to this House: In the 
first place, I insist that in the interest of peace, in the interest of 
our soldiers and sailors, in the maintenance of the dignity and 
power of Congress, and in fulfillment of our solemn obligations, 
this Congress should affirmatively declare a policy, whatever that 
policy may be, as to the purposes and intentions of the Federal 
Government with reference to the Philippine Islands. I submit, 
in the next place, with equal earnestness, that the policy to be de- 
clared should be a policy looking to the release of the Philippine 
Islands from the sovereignty of the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not so much concprned about the style and 
form of government that the Filipinos should have as I am con- 
cerned that we should absolve ourselves from their government 
at the earliest possible day. I do not claim for the view s I pre- 
sent any special merit of newness or of originality. I simply 
claim for them sincerity. 1 do not believe, technically and legally 
speaking, that we bear the same relation to the Philippines that 
we do to Cuba. Morally speaking, I believe the relation is the 
same. In the treaty of peace, "Spain relinquishes all claim of 
sovereignty over and title to Cuba," but does not cede that sov- 
ereignty to us. In reference to the Philippines, the treaty declares, 
"Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the 
Philippine Islands. " It appears from a reading of the treaty that 
in the case of Cuba we take the title to hold in trust, as it were, 
to be delivered after the pacification of the island to the Cubans, 
while in the case of the Philippines we take outright and to our- 
selves whatever title Spain had to the Philippines. 

It therefore follows that we are vested to-day with just as good 
a title, and no better, as Spain had and held. While this is true, I 
nevertheless believe that when the Fifty-fifth Congress declared 
that the Cuban people "are and of right ought to be free and in- 
dependent," they in effect declared the .same of the Filipinos, be- 
cause it would be absurd and ridiculous to give any other mean- 
ing to the declaration. We could not have stood before the 
civilized world and said, "The Cuban people are and of right 
ought to be free and independent, but the Filipinos are not and 
of right ought not to be free and independent. " The declaration 
we made was a declaration of freedom, and, although it was lim- 



8 

ited to the Cuban people, it was so limited because they were tne 
only people at that time involved, but the principle and the spirit 
involved in the declaration was as broad as the universe. 

I believe, too, that when the Fifty-fifth Congress declared it to 
be the determination of the United States to leave the govern- 
ment and control of the island of Cuba to its jieople. after the 
pacification thereof, it was equivalent to a declaration that the 
United States was not engaged in a war of conijuest, and did not 
expect to demand any enlargement of its territory or any enrich- 
ment of its Treasurj' as the result of its victorious arms. It was 
a declaration so lofty and so noDle that it thrilled every American 
heart and proclaimed again to the world that a new government, 
upon new theories higher and better than the Old World ever 
knew, existed in the Western Hemisphere. It was such a decla- 
ration as only a government founded upon liberty could have 
uttered. It follows, if my construction of the resolutions of Con- 
gress is correct, that, morally speaking, there is no difference 
between the status of Cuba and the status of the Philippines so 
far as the United States Government is concerned. [Applause.] 

The technical difference, however, that does exist involves a 
difference in the course to be pursued by the Congress. In the 
case of Cuba a policy of inaction is all that is necessary to prevent 
us from embarking in a colonial enterprise there, while in the 
case of the Philippines and of Puerto Rico a policy of positive ac- 
tion is necessary to undo the entry that has already been made 
into a colonial venture, in order to save this country from the 
perils of colonial government. 

Gentlemen who speak of those who oppose the permanent reten- 
tion of the Philippines as mere obstructionists demonstrate that 
they have not given the subject the consideration that its impor- 
tance deserves. The i bundations of empire have alread y been 1 aid. 
The beginning of a colonial system of government has already 
been inaugurated. There are those of us who would undo this 
wrong and who would put the ship of state back into the waters 
in which she has sailed so long. Those of us who wish this done 
desire positive action in order to do it. Those who oppose it are 
the real obstructionists. 

In reference to our title to the Philippines, it occurs to me that 
our status is about this: We took a conveyance of title from 
Spain, and we hold by that means the paper title to the islands. 
When we came to take possession, however, under our title, the 
Filipinos interposed an adverse claim. They claimed an adverse 
possession and set tip a prescriptive title. Those of us who have 
practiced law have seen many a good paper title defeated by a 
superior prescriptive title. When the Filipinos thus joined issue 
with ua upon the question of title, we sought in no way to adjust 
our differences with them. We appealed to no peaceful forum to 
determine the disputed issue, and thus it followed that the issue of 
title was put to the arbitrament of the sword for determination. 
Possibly, if we had called the conscience of the world into a court, 
and had appeared in such a forum to test our rights, we might 
have had it suggested to us that Spain held Cuba by the same 
right that she held the Philippines; that her title to the one was 
as good as to the other, and we might have been asked how we 
reconciled the fact of our repudiation ot her title to Cuba and yet 
held as valid and legal her title to the Philippines. 

We might also have been asked, if we really believed that by her 
4090 



9 ^ 

corrupt rule Spain had forfeited her title to Cuba, if, for the same 
reason, we did not really believe that she had also forfeited her 
title to the Philippines. It might have been aslied us, too, if Eng- 
land did not have as good title to her American colonies as Spain 
ever dared to claim to the Philippines, and if we now believe that 
our forefathers were right in repudiating the title of England. It 
is possible also that we might have been asked, if we now believed 
in the validity of Spain's title to her colonies, how it was that we 
recognized her rebellious colonies in South America when they 
disputed that title. Some of these questions might have been 
troublesome to answer, but, whether for that reason or for some 
other, we did not stop to argue or dispute the question of title, 
but proceeded with Army and Navy to take possession of these 
islands under the title that we had. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. GRIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
my colleague be allowed to conclude his remarks. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia asks unani- 
mous consent that his colleague be allowed to conclude his re- 
marks. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears 
none. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Believing as I do, Mr. Chairman, for the 
reasons given, that our moral duty to the Philippines is the same 
as it is to the Cubans, I insist that we should accord to them the 
same freedom that we propose to accord to the Cubans. 

I recognize the fact, however, that, so far as the Cubans are 
concerned, we are neither expected to or have the right to organ- 
ize a government for them. Indeed, under the treaty of peace, in 
which Spain did not cede her sovereignty in Cuba to us, and 
under the resolution of Congress declaring war against Spain, in 
which we disclaimed any disposition to exercise sovereignty, 
jurisdiction, or control over Cuba, except for the pacification 
thereof, and asserted our determination when that was accom- 
plished to leave the government and control of the island to its 
people, we have nothing to do with a government in Cuba. Our 
plain and Tuanifest duty is to get out of Cuba after its pacification. 
In the case of the Philippines we have the technical right, under 
our title, to establish a government there, provided we establish 
it under the Constitution; nor will I stop to discuss the proposi- 
tion that by tlie act of cession of these islands to us we assumed 
certain international obligations to estalilish a government there; 
nor will I stop to discuss the proposition that some obligation 
rests upon us to restore order in the islands for the good of the 
inhabitants thereof. I am willing, for all the purposes of my 
argument, to concede that such obligations rest upon us; but 
when, with the aid of the natives, whose aid we should invite, we 
have performed these obligations, I insist that our duty then is 
to get out and leave the government and control of these islands 
to their own people. In the case of Cuba we must get out after 
pacification, and in the case of the Philippines we ought to get 
out after the establishment of a government there, and we ought 
to declare now that such is our purpose. 

Delay may be necessary to determine how valuable the Philip- 
pines are, but time is not of the essence in determining the great 
question of intention or in choosing between that which is morally 
wrong and that which is morally right. It will take time to per- 
fect a permanent government for the Philippines, but no such 

4095 



10 

time is necessary to determine whether or not we intend to estab- 
lish such a government. Some people say. What will become of 
the Philippines when we leave them? I ask what will become of 
Cuba, that we have alreadj- determined to leave? "Sufficient 
unto the daj' is the evil thereof." When we have determined to 
leave the Philippines, I doubt not but that the wisdom and patri- 
otism of the American Congress will find a way to carry that de- 
termination into effect, and a way by which the honor and the 
prestige of the American name will be sustained. When we have 
declared our intention, we will then determine the method of its 
execution. It will not do for gentlemen to say that a declaration 
from us would not bind a subsequent Congress, and therefore 
there is no reason to make it. We might with as much propriety 
decline to enact any legislation upon the plea that a subsequent 
Congress may repeal it. If we decline to declare the intention of 
the United States in regard to the Philippines upon such aground, 
the next and each succeeding Congress may likewise decline to do 
so upon the same ground, and thus the Philippines would be fas- 
tened upon us forever. It is sufficient for us to perform our duty 
as we see it. We can not avoid doing so upon the pretext that In 
the future other people may not perform theirs. 

Great stress is laid by some upon the strategical value of these 
islands to us, and it is insisted that we need a base of operations 
and a base of supplies there. I will not stop to argue this proposi- 
tion, because I do not suppose that anyone doubts that it is within 
our power before we get out of the Pliilippine Islands to arrange 
with their government for whatever coaling stations and harbor 
facilities and commercial advantages that we desire. Indeed, I 
do not suppose there is an individual anywhere who doubts that 
we could leave the Philippines to-morrow, if we so desired, upon 
our own terms and our own conditions. It seems to me, there- 
fore, that all the argument in favor of a permanent retention of 
the Philippines upon such grounds as these is pointless, because 
all that we desire, all that we need, and all that we could claim 
we could have without a permanent retention of the islands. 

In my opinion there are but two courses open for the United 
States to follow in reference to these islands. If it should be the 
will of the American peo))]e, as represented in Congress, to per- 
manently retain these islands, then in the resolution declaring 
such intention there should be included the further resolution de- 
claring our intent and purpose either now or in the future to in- 
corporate these islands into statehood. The only other course 
open to us to pursue is to vacate the islands, leaving the people 
thereof to control their owu government whenever the same is 
established. 

I do not believe that we have the power to annex any territory, 
whether by peaceable or forcible means, when we do not at the 
time or in the future ever intend to incorporate such territory 
into our Union as a sovereign State and to extend to the inhabit- 
ants thereof the rights of citizens of the United States. There are 
those, however, who insist that we have the right to annex terri- 
tory without any such intention, and that Congress has the power 
to govern it outside of the Constitution. I can not assent to any 
such belief or any such proposition. 

We have such a proposition s(iuarely pi'esented to us now in the 
pending bill, wherein it is proposed to levy impost duties upon the 

Eroducts of Puerto Rico into the United States, Puerto Rico now 
eing a part of the United States. The bill is in violation of the 
4095 



11 

Constitution of our country. It is a bold announcement of an im- 
perial policy. It can not be defended upon the ground that the 
tax is small. The question presented is not one of dollars, it is 
one of principle. It is not a question of free trade or of protec- 
tion, it is a question of Constitution or no Constitution. The ma- 
jority of the Ways and Means Committee who have reported this 
bill advise us in their report, in answer to the suggestion that this 
legislation will set a precedent for the Philippines, that they ex- 
pressly assert by this bill the right to discriminate between Puerto 
Rico or the Philippine Islands and the United States. 

They inform us by way of argument that it was the people of 
the original thirteen States who formed the Union, that it was for 
themselves and their posterity that the Union was formed, and they 
conclude and solemnly state "' that upon reason and authority the 
term 'United States,' as used in the Constitution, has reference 
only to the States that constitute the Federal Union, and does not 
include Territories," and they further conclude •'that the power 
of Congress with respect to legislation for the Territories is ple- 
nary." They base their conclusions largely upon the proposition 
that the treaty of peace with Spain left Congress with the power 
to determine what legislation should be enacted for the islands 
ceded, and that the law of the treaty is supreme. 

I would suggest that before the treaty was framed the Constitu- 
tion existed, and that before these islands were ceded the Congress 
of the United States was organized. I submit that the Constitu- 
tion is the supreme authority in this country, aliove statutes and 
above treaties. The treaty-making power, existing itself by the 
power of the Constitution, can not confer a power to override the 
Constitiition. Congress has no power that it does not derive from 
the Constitution. The President, by the help of a foreign nation 
and the United States Senate, can not alter or amend the Constitu- 
tion. He can confer no power upon Congress that it does not al- 
ready possess. He can not subtract from any power that already 
exists. The treaty may enlarge the territory over which the Con- 
gress may legislate, but the treaty can neither add to nor take from 
the limitations of power that are imposed by the Constitution 
upon the Congress. It is undoubtedly true that in the prosecution 
of a war the President may seize foreign territory. He may by 
treaty have this territory annexed to the United States. He may 
do this in times of peace. 

Until the act of annexation is complete by the formal ratifica- 
tion by the Senate, the President may exercise military rule and 
maintain military government over the ceded territory. When- 
ever, however, the final formalities of the annexation are complete 
and the ceded territory becomes a part of the United States, it 
becomes as much a part as any State or Territory in the Union. 
During the formative period of organizing such a territory into a 
Territorial government the President may govern the same until 
the Congress is prepared to act, but whenever Congress under- 
takes to legislate for the ceded territory it must legislate under 
the terms of the Constitution. This proposition has time and 
again been affirmed by our Supreme Court. The clause in the 
Constitution providing that " Congress shall have power to dispose 
of and make all needful regulations respecting the territory and 
other property belonging to the United States " has been repeatedly 
construed to mean that this power is given subject to the limita- 
tions of the Constitution. It is not a despotic, arbitrary power, to 
be used without restraint. Congress possesses no such power for 

4095 



12 

any purpose. The power given is plenary, but plenary in the 
sense tli:it it is as full and complete as the Constitution will allow. 
Chief Justice Waite, in 101 U. S., 132, clearly states the true con- 
struction of this clause when he says: 

ButContrress is suin-i-me and for the purposes of this department of its 
eovernin.>iital authorltv has all the power of the people of the United states, 
except such as has Im'.'u" expressly or by implication reserved m the prohibi- 
tions of the Constitution. 

The same principle is enunciated in 98 U. S., 162; 1G6 U. S., 707; 
170 U. S., 340: 114 U. S., 15; 127 U. S., 550; and in many other 
cases. Congress, in legislating for a Territory, assumes the pow- 
ers of a State legislature in addition to its powers as the Congress. 
The Territorial courts that it provides have the jurisdiction of 
State courts as well as of the Federal courts. This is all mani- 
festly proper, because the Congress is the only power that can 
govern the Territory, and vet Congress can pass no law for any 
Territory that is prohibited by the Constitution. It is subject 
always in all that it does to the limitations upon its power fixed 
by the Constitution. 

•::• » * * * * * , . 

The gentlemen of the majority, as I understand them, adnait 
that the Constitution is supreme so long as the Congress is legis- 
lating for the States, but that the Constitution does not prevail 
when the Congress is legislating for the Territories, In other 
words, the Constitution is recognized in the United States, limited, 
but is unknown in the United States, unlimited. I understand 
from them that, in their opinion, the Constitution does not extend 
over any part of the vast territory of the Philippines or of Puerto 
Rico, and that Congress, which has no power except under the 
Constitution, has unUmited and unbridled power and authority 
to frame any government and enact any laws in these Territories 
that may suit its will and pleasure. 

I understand from them that they believe that no restriction, 
fundamental or otherwise, is put upon Congress in legislating 
for these Territories except the prohibition of slavery. I under- 
stand from them that we can tax the people in these islands as 
much or as little as we please; that we are not called upon or re- 
(luired to give them representation before we tax them; that their 
consent is not necessary to any government we may choose to put 
upon them or to any laws that we may determine to enact for 
them. As I understand, further, the position of the gentlemen of 
the majority of the committee, they hold that the inhabitants of 
these islands can not lie interfered with in the free exercise of their 
religion, because the treaty with Spain provides that this shall 
not be done, but that they hold that, the treaty not providing to 
the contrary, Congress is not bound by the limitations on its 
power fixed in the Constitution. I therefore understand that if 
the position of these gentlemen be correct. Congress may in time 
of peace suspend the writ of habeas corpus in these islands: may 
pass bills of attainder and ex post facto laws; may infringe the 
right to keep and bear arms; may (juarter soldiers in time of 
peace in anv home without consulting the owner: may institute 
unreasonable searches and seizures of the people and their houses 
and issue Avarrants without probable cause and without oath or 
affirmation, and may deny the right of trial by jury. 

Mr, Chairman, it is enough to shoik the moral conscience to 
know that in this day of enlightenment, when we believe the 

4095 



13 

principles of free government to be better understood than they 
have ever been before, gentlemen claiming allegiance to a free 
government should assert the right and power of this Congress 
to thus rule and govern a people who form a part of the United 
States and over whom float the Stars and Stripes which such 
people are expected to love and to reverence. If we carry this 
position to a further conclusion, we find that the Constitution pro- 
hibits the granting of titles of nobility by the United States; but 
if the Constitution does not apply to Puerto Rico or the Philip- 
pines, and if the power of Congress is plenary in dealing with 
these islands, what is to hinder Congress from enthroning a king 
upon these islands and creating the right of succession and pro- 
viding for lords and dukes and ail the court machinery necessary 
to create an ideal monarchy? Could anything be more repellant 
to the American mind? Is not the mere statement of the possi- 
bility of such a thing a sufficient argument itself against the 
proposition that is insisted upon? [Applause.] 

I would beg to suggest that the argument of the majority of the 
committee that the Constitution is for the States alone is not new. 
It was first suggested by those who opposed the accession of Loui- 
siana. These gentlemen were given to quotmg the preamble to 
the Constitution, beginning, "We, the people of the United States, " 
and saying, " It is we, the people of the United States, for ourselves 
and our posterity, not for the people of New Orleans or of Canada; 
none of these enter into the scope of the instrument." And yet 
those who in their day opposed the annexation of Louisiana be- 
cause they believed there was no warrant or authority under the 
Constitution for it were overruled, and Louisiana was annexed. 
Those to-day who oppose the annexation of the Philippines are 
pointed to this past history as an answer to their objections. 

The answer, however, does not appear to be all that is claimed 
for it, for we are now told that the opponents to the annexation of 
Louisiana were wrong, that the Constitution provided for it, and 
yet we are also told that this same Constitution, although provid- 
ing for annexation, does not provide that its sheltering protection 
shall extend over the territory annexed. It would thus appear 
that we are involved in the unfortunate predicament where we 
must either deny the Constitution in order to annex or deny it 
after annexation in order to govern. It seems to be simply a ques- 
tion of where we will deny it, for somewhere we must lay it aside 
or our schemes can not go through. It seems to be a sorry dilemma 
in which we find ourselves, no matter which way we turn. 

In attempting to pass this bill the grievances of the American 
colonies are pushed into the background and forgotten. We are 
asked to steel our hearts and close our ears to the remonstrances 
of our forefathers, that through the cycles of time have ever rung 
in the ears of American patriots and that until now we have ever 
believed would ring in all the ages to come. [Applause.] How 
soon are we asked to forget that it was a protest against taxation 
without representation and not a thirst for liberty that first pro- 
voked the Revolutionary war! How soon are we asked to forget 
those ringing and one time thought never to be forgotten words of 
the brave Virginians of old, when they declared, " No power on 
earth has a right to impose taxes on the people or take the 
smallest portion of their property without their consent given by 
their representatives." [Applause.] This principle, the Virgin- 
ians said, is the " chief pillar of the Constitution," without which 
4093. 



14 

"no man can be said to have the least shadow of liberty, ' since 
no man could be truly said to possess anything if other men could 
lawfully take away any portion of it. [Applause.] 

I have no desire or intention to enter into a discussion of the 
le.t,'al authorities bearing on this question and shall refer to but 
few of them. They have been so ably presented that there is 
notliing left for me to say in reference to them. The Constitu- 
tion provides that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uni- 
form throughout the United States.'" It also provides that "no 
tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." It 
also provides that "no preference shall be given by any regulation 
of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of 
another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged 
to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. '" These provisions of the 
Constitution, it seems to me. are sufficiently clear in their mean- 
ing as to absolutely prohibit the passage of "this bill. I think the 
language used is too plain to admit of construction, but, if any is 
needed, in my judgment the opinion of Justice Marshall in 5 
Wheaton. 317, is all that is necessary. In this case, in construing 
the first provision of the Constitution I have quoted, he says: 

The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises mav be ex- 
ercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term 
designate the whole or any particular portion of the American empire ? Cer- 
tainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our 
great Keiiublic, which is composed of States and Tfrritories. The District 
of Columbia or the Territories west of the Missouri is not less within the 
United States than Waryhuid or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary on 
the principle of our ("onstitution, that uniformity in the imposition of im- 
posts, duties, and excises shall be observed in the one than in the other. 

In addition to this I would also cite the striking language em- 
ployed by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, in 19 
Howard. 482. Gentlemen may call this language a dictum or 
what not, but none of them will ever successfully reply to the 
great truth that it so clearly states: 

There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Gov- 
ernment to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or 
at a distance to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure, nor to enlarge its 
territorial limits in any way except by the admission of new States. That 

J)ower is plainly given, and if a new State is admitted it needs no further 
egislation Ijy Congress, because the Constitution itself defines the relative 
rights and powers and duties of the State and the citizens of the State and 
the Federal Government. But no power is given to acquire a territory to 
be hold and governed permanently m that character. The power to expand 
the territory of the United States by the admission of now States is plainly 
given, and in the construction of this power by all the departments of the 
Government it has been held to authorize the acquisition of a territory not 
fit for admission at the time, but to be admitted as soon as its population 
would entitle it to admission. It is accjuired to become a State, and not be 
held as a colony and governed by Congress with absohite authority. 

This bill is squarely in conflict with two provisions of the Con- 
stitution. Puerto Rico being a part of the United States, a duty 
upon articles imported into the States from Puerto Rico violates 
the uniformity of duties that the Constitution says must exist 
throughout the United States. In the next place, the bill in pro- 
posing a duty at Puerto Rico on all goods imported from the States 
into Puerto Rico not only violates the principle of uniformity, 
but further violates that otlier provision of the Ctnistitution, that 
"no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State," 
for it can not be denied that this duty, althougli collected in 
Puerto Rico, is in fact an export duty on the goods sent out from 
any State. All the ingenuity and all the sophistry of our friends 



15 

on the other side can not refute a proposition that is as plain and 
manifest as this. 

It is an interesting fact that when the Ways and Means Com- 
mittee iirst undertook an investigation of this subject they were 
not sure as to the meaning of the term " the United States " as 
found in the Constitution, and they appointed a subcommittee 
to make research and advise tlie full committee as to tlie exact 
meaning of this term. As a result of this research the committee 
reached the conclusion that the term "the United States" does 
not include Territories, and they presented a most elaborate argu- 
ment to sustain their conclusions, and to further establish the 
proposition that the power of Congress in legislating for the Ter- 
ritories is plenary. Now. ' ' plenary "' means ' ' full in all respects or 
requisites," " entire" and " complete," and it seems to me that if 
the power of Congress be plenary, all discussion as to what the 
Constitution means is superfluous so far as this question is con- 
cerned. If the Constitution does not extend to Puerto Rico, and. 
if the limitations prescribed in it are not binding upon Congress 
in legislating for Puerto Rico, of what interest is it to know what 
the term " the United States " means? Or of what necessity is it 
to construe the Constitution at all? 

I beg further to say that, in my opinion, all the authorities and 
all the precedents cited by those who uphold this bill are in vain; 
thev are not precedents; they do not apply; they do not present 
parallel cases, because I submit that never before in the history 
of the Congress has it ever been attempted to legislate for any 
people for whom there did not exist, by treaty or declaration some- 
where made, an intention upon the part of the United States to 
incorporate these people into citizenship and statehood. I realize, 
Mr. Chairman, the predicament of our friends upon the other side 
who favor this bill. Against their duty to obey the Constitution 
comes the desire not to antagonize the agricultural or industrial 
or labor interests of this country by admitting free of duty the 
products of the several islands annexed, and neither do they \yish 
to antagonize any of these interests by removing all restrictions 
upon immigration from these islands. 

The predicament in which they find themselves is serious. Upon 
the one side is the Constitution and the rights of the Puerto Rican 
people now, and the rights of all our other islands m the future, 
none of which can vote. Upon the other side are American inter- 
ests each one controlling votes. I would not charge that the lat- 
ter side have prevailed in the deliberations of the gentlemen of the 
committee because of their power, but, reading the present m the 
light of the past, I am not surprised that they have done so. i do 
not know and do not charge that such considerations have con- 
trolled the committee in thus departing from the Constitution and 
from the lead of the President, whom they have been so blindly 
following throughout the discussion of those new questions, and 
yet it is an interesting thing to note the report of the Ways and 
Means Committee recommending this Puerto Rican taritt, and 
then to note the recommendation of the President in his last an- 
nual message, when he said, " Our plain duty is to abolish all cus- 
toms tariffs between the United States and Puerto Rico and give 
her products free access to our market," and also to note the rec- 
ommendation of the Secretary of War, who says, "I wish most 
stron"-lv to urge that the customs duties between Puerto Rico and 
the United States be removed." We note these things and won- 
der why the departure. 

4095 



16 

Mr. Chairman. I am not unmindful that there are interests, and 
perhaps larice interests, of this country that will be affected, and 
possibly seriously affected, by free trade between the United States 
anil the islands recently acquired. 1 would avoid such injury if 
I could: but in my .iudgment. if the American people make up 
their minds to hold tliese islands as a part of the United States, they 
must likewise reach the conclusion to endure whatever hardships 
are thereby entailed. I do not believe that we of the Congress 
can keep unsullied the great trust repo.sed in us and "shut up" 
the Constitution to protect any interest that now or hereafter may 
fiourish in the United States." [Applause.] 

So far as Puerto Rico is concerned, no substantial injury could 
come to American industries by free trade with it. The island is 
only about 40 miles wide and 80 miles long, and all that it could 
produce would be but a small fraction of the production of this 
country. The trouble with the gentlemen of the committee is not 
free trade with Puerto Rico. It is free sugar from Cuba and the 
Philippines that they fear. They are afraid of the precedent that 
free trade with Puerto Rico would establish. And so with this 
fear, which is a fear of the protected sugar barons, they turn down 
the Constitution and turn a deaf ear to the appeals of Puerto Rico 
for relief and propose this bill. Aside from all constitutional 
questions, the bill should not pass because of its injustice to the 
Puerto Ricans. They are entitled to our markets, for we, by our 
act. have shut them out from all othi rs. The Merchants' Associ- 
ation of New York City have investigated this question, and they 
have declared for free trade with Puerto Rico, in order that we 
may keep faith with its inhabitants and do but simple justice to 
them. They (luote approvingly from Mr. William R. Corwine, 
whom their association sent to Puerto Rico to investigate trade 
conditions there. Mr. Corwine said: 

Place the inhabitants in the position where their trade can be extended 
and all will be well; but if this policy which contracts trade and increases 
pauperism continues, the questions which in prosperity would become minor 
ones will grow in importance, and instead of a feeling of contentment, which 
makes government easy, a spirit of discontent will arise which may render 
government hard. The Spaniards ruled by force. We can rule through the 
affections of the people. Shortened purses and empty stomachs, however, 
are not the bases upon which affection thrives. 

As illustrating the distressing conditions which prevail in 
Puerto Rico — conditions that demand liberal treatment from us, 
that demand free trade, justice, and equality — 1 quote a late dis- 
patch that appeared in the Associated Press items: 

San Juan, Pcerto Rico, Febi-uary ;?, Woo. 

Several of the largest merchants of San Juan, upon being interviewed, 
unanimously e.xpressed the opinion that immediate Congressional action ie 
absolutely essential to the interests of the island. They say that the crops 
are immovable, the proposed duty under the Foraker bill on sugar and to- 
bacco being prohibitive. There are now o,;X)(),ii()() pounds of tobacco ready 
for shii)ment. and by August there will be .'i.iKid.ooii pounds. The best price 
obtainable for tobacco in New York under thd halt-<lollar duty is about j;1.8.5. 

There has been a small coif ee crop, owing to the hurricane, and sugar can 
not i)ay the duty imposed, the planters holding their products and awaiting 
the action of Congress. There is no money to plant now crops or to pay labor- 
ers, thousands of whom are on the i)iiint of starvation, being unable to obtain 
work. The estates are idle and b.-inkers refuse to advance funds on ac-count 
of the extension of mortgages; the i)lanters are tles])erate and the pi'ople 
discoiirageil, and they demand absolute free trade and authority for the 
island to contract a loan to pay immediate expenses and for the relief of the 
planters. 

The local press expre.sses the opinion that the conditions of the island wore 
better during the darkest days or the Spanish r'^'gime. 
4UU5 



i7 

The Foraker bill would be acceptable without the duty, the merchants ije- 
tog willing to pay a revonue tax in lieu of the tariff, which would relieve the 
planters. 

Undoubtedly, if we are going to pennaneiitly retain the Philip- 
pines, we should so declare, and should pronaptly make amends 
for the failure of the treaty to proviile for their admission to state- 
hood by solemnly declaring here that statehood will be given them 
when they are ready for it: and yet I do not believe that this will 
be done, for, so far as I have ever read or heard, there is no one in 
all this broad land who believes that these islands will ever become 
States in the Union, or who desires that they should so become. 
The character, the habits, the interests, and the civilization of the 
people inhabiting them are such that our Anglo-Saxon civilization, 
or, better still, our American civilization, would never consent that 
these people should have equal voice and equal power with us in 
the management of our own affairs. They are too far removed 
from us also for community of interest and action to ever e.xist 
betw^een them and us. It "is manifest that those who brought 
about their annexation had no thought or purpose of making them 
citizens of the United States, because, in violation of all prece- 
dents in the treaty-making history of this Government, those who 
negotiated the treaty did not incorporate therein any provision 
looking to statehood for the islands or citizenship for their inhab- 
itants. 

Gentlemen of the other side and as well those elsewhere who 
favor the permanent retention of the Philippine Islands are free 
to quote precedents, and to say that they are but following in the 
tracks marked out by our forefathers in the beginning of this 
Republic. I wish to take issue with this position. As I have 
already pointed out, there is no parallel in all our past history to 
the proposition now pending to permanently retain the Philippine 
Islands without any declaration of intention to ever accord them 
statehood. The parallel between the present case and our past 
history also fails in that all our past annexations have been in the 
main annexations of territory and not of people. 

The annexation of the Louisiana territory is most frequently 
cited as justifying the annexation of the Philippines. I wish to 
call attention to the fact that at the time of the annexation of 
Louisiana that, aside from the constitutional questions th;it were 
raised, and to which I have already adverted, the burning ques- 
tion at that time was the fear that this great territory, after it 
became populated, would become all-powerful in the Union and 
would dominate the Government to the exclusion of the East. 
Certainly no such question exists now as to the Philippines. 

Texas was objected to, among other grounds, because it was 
claimed that its annexation was but a scheme to extend the slave- 
holding territory and increase the strength of the slaveholding 
States. This objection might be somewhat pertinent now in the 
light of the treaty our Government has consummated with the 
Sultan of Sulu, by which treaty the United States not only agrees 
not to interfere with but to protect the people of the Sultan in the 
free exercise of their religion and customs, social and domestic, 
which customs include slavery, but also, as an evidence of the 
good faith of this Government in so agreeing. General Otis o.iVred 
a present to the Sultan and datos of .SlCtMJU. Mexican money, and 
agreed to regularly supply sums of money thereafter in accord- 
ance with the previous agreement of Spain. 

4095—3 



18 

In reference to the Louisiana purchase, I would call attention 
to the fact that, notwithstamling the assaults that Avere leveled 
at Jeflerson, that .ureat statesman, before he ever treated with 
France for a cession of the Louisiana territory, transmitted to 
the Congress on December 15, 1802, his message calling attention 
to the cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France; 
and again, on January 11, l^O'S, he transmitted his message to the 
Senate nominating a minister plenipotentiary and a minister 
extraordinary and plenipotentiary to treat with both France and, 
if necessary, Spain, in reference to obtaining a cession of this 
territory. It thus appears that his purpose, whether held to be 
wise or unwise, was not concealed in his own bosom. The same 
was communicated to the lawmaldng power, and both the law- 
making and the treaty-making power of this Government were in 
his full confidence in the very incipiency of the negotiations for 
this cession. Does that parallel exist in our negotiations for the 
Philippines? 

I would also remind our friends on the other side that Jefferson 
convened the Congress in extraordinary session on October 17, 
1808, after the treaty of cession was agreed upon, and in his mes- 
sage to Congress on that day used this American language: 

With the wisdom of Congress it will rest to take those ulterior measures 
which may be necessary for the immediate occupation and temporary gov- 
ernment of the country; for its iueorporatiou into our L'nion; for rendering 
the change of government a blessing to our newly adopted brethren; for se- 
curing to them the rights of conscience and of property; for confirming to 
the Indian inhabitants their occupancy and self-government, establishing 
friendly and commercial relations with them, and for ascertaining the geog- 
raphy of the country acquired. 

He thus announced in the outset that, so far as his Administra- 
tion was concerned, our newly acquired citizens were brethren; 
that their territory was to be incorporated into our Union, and 
that self-government would be continued to them. It is unneces- 
sary for me to remind gentlemen that the treaty with France itself 
stipulated that Louisiana should eventually be incorporated as a 
State. If we are going to cite the Louisiana purchase as a prece- 
dent for annexing the Philippines, must not we. in order to justify 
ourselves entirely, go the lengt h that Jeiierson did and announce 
stateho )d and self-government for the Filipinos? 

It may not be out of place for me to call attention to the fact 
that at the time of the annexation of Louisiana it was vital to the 
young American Republic to control the Mississippi River. Time 
and again the right of deposit in New Orleans had been denied 
them. They were confronted with the fact that this great river 
and the vast territory of Louisiana had been ceded by Spain to 
Napoleon, and that the great Emperor proposed to reorganize on 
a grand scale his French colonies. 

The safety of the young Republic, to say nothing of its com- 
merce, demanded that this should not be done, but that our Re- 
ptiblic, in the interest of peace, in the interest of its perpetuity, 
and in the interest of its commerce, should control this river and 
this territory. Such was the situation then, and, reading into 
the future, Jefferson, with unfaltering wisdom, acted. Is there 
a parallel between tliat situation and the present? Is not the 
Philippine situation just the reverse of that? Then our fathers 
were welding together a compact territory on this continent; 
now we ai-e crossing a great ocean and invading another conti- 
nent. Then our fathers acted in the interest of peace and sought 
to promote and preserve it; now we throw peace to the winds and 

40U5 



19 

challenge war. Then our fathers sought to preserve that which 
they had: now we, to feed a thirst for glory and for greed, imperil 
that which we have. Then our fathers sought to bestow liljerty; 
now we to deny it. Then our fatlu^rs sought to avoid European 
andeastern entanglements; now wedeliberatelvinvite tiieni. [Ap- 
plause.] Then our fathers were humble worshiners at tlie shrine 
of liberty, seeking to dedicate this country to the sacred cause of 
freedom: now we feel that we have become a world power and 
are seeking to exhibit to the world our strength and our might. 

It is an interesting fact that, notwithstanding the potent argu- 
ments in favor of oar obtaining Louisiana. J elfer-son doubted and 
hesitated as to the power of this Government to annex it. and' it 
is written that he talked of calling for a constitutional amend- 
ment that would authorize and justify that which had already 
been done. It was subsequently determined, hovv^ever, that this 
was unnecessary. No such ( luahas of conscience as this all" ect the 
expansionist of to-day. Starting from the standpoint of what 
Jefferson did and ignoring what he thought, they go beyond him, 
beyond all the fathers and all the traditions and all the prece- 
dents, and propose to centralize here in Washington, outside the 
pale of the Constitution, the control of the ha])piness, the for- 
tunes, the aspirations, and the government of more than 10,000,000 
human souls, and they situated thousands of miles away from our 
farthest western shore. 

As illustrating the views and the opinions of the expansionists 
of old, and to show the striking contrast between them and the 
expansionists of to-day, I beg to call attention to what President 
Polk said in his message of December 2, 1845, in reference to the 
annexation of Texas: 

This accession to our territory has been a bloodless achievement. No arm 
of force has been raised to produce the result. The sword has had no jmrt 
in the victory. We have not sought to extend our territorial pos.seHsions by 
conquest or our republican institutions over a reluctant people. It was the 
deliberate homage of each people to the great principle of our federative 
Union. 

When our President of to-day comes to write the history of the 
annexation of the Philippines, can he quote the language of 
President Polk? 

President Polk further, in his inaugural address, in favoring 
the policy of expansion, used this significant language: 

It is confidently believed that our system may be safely extended to the 
utmost bounds of our territorial limits, and that as it shall be extended the 
bonds of our Union, so far from being weakened, will become stronger. 

The expansionist of to-day ridicules the idea of there being any 
limit to our expansion, and yet the expansionist of old, as shown 
in the address of President Polk, believed that there were limits 
to our exijansion. That the farthest extent of these limits were 
the limits fixed by the Western Hemisphere I do not suppose any- 
one doubts. 

President Polk is not the only statesman of old who believed 
that there were limits to our expansion, for we find that in the 
second annual message of President Monroe he said: 

By extending our Government on the principles of our Constitution over 
the vast territory within our limits on the lakes and the Mississippi and its 
numerous streams new life and vigor are infused into every part of our 

system. 

The great Daniel Webster also said: 

There must be some limit to the extent of our territory, if we would make 
our institutions perma7ient. 
409.5 



20 

The Monroe doctrine, so called because of its forcible presenta- 
tion by President Monroe, although it had been the settled ])olicy 
of this Government from its or,i;anization, is thus stated by Presi- 
dent Monroe in his message of Det-ember 2, 1823. After referring 
to the struggle of the Greeks lor liberty and briefly to the affairs 
of Spain and Portugal, he says: 

The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in 
favor of the hberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the At- 
lantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to them- 
selves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so 
to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we 
resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements 
in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately cnnnected, and by 
causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and imi>artial observers. 
The political system of the allied powers is essentially difierent in this re- 
spect from that of America. This difference proceedsfrom that which exists 
in their respective governments, and to the defense of oui' own, which has 
been achieved by the loss of so much blood and trea.sure, and matured by the 
wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed 
unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to 
candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and 
those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part 
to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our 
peace and safety. 

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we 
have not interfered and shall not interfere; but with the governments who 
have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence 
we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we 
could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or con- 
trolling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in any 
other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the 
United States. 

Is not the justice and righteousness of the Monroe doctrine 
based on the declared policy of this Republic not to iuterlere in 
European affairs? For a hundred years or more we did not seek 
to e.xtend our system of government into the Eastern Hemisphere, 
and the Eastern and European countries have not extended theirs 
here, but have held aloof out of re.spect to the Monroe doctrine. 
It is true that now and then foreign powers have pretended to 
sneer at the pretensions of this doctrine, and yet none of them 
have dared to violate it. Upon what reason and vipon what jus- 
tice can we maintain it before the enlightened judgment of man- 
kind if we deliberately remove our main justification and defense 
of it? If we can invade Asia, and feel justified in so doing, why 
can not Germany or some other country invade some portion of 
the Western Hemisphere not occupied by us and feel justified in 
so doing? If we pursue the course of planting our system of gov- 
ernment in the Eastern Hemisphere, will not the (juestion of main- 
taining ourselves there and here be simply a (luestion of power 
and of might and not a question of right? Will not the equity we 
now have be gone, our defense be destroyed, and we left to stand 
solely by the strength of our good right arm. unsupported and 
unsustained by the righteousness and justice with which we have 
heretofore been armed? 

There are those who talk about the annexation of Florida as a 
precedent for annexing the Philippines, and yet it was President 
Alonroe, who enunciated the famous Monroe doctrine, who nego- 
tiated this treaty. At the time of that annexation the Monroe 
doctrine was in full force, and the annexation of Florida so far 
from weakening it emphasized and strengthened it. Annexation 
of the Philii)pines tends to destroy it. We all know that at the 
time of the annexation of Florida our country was harassed and 
disturbed by roving bands of savages and outlaws in the penin- 

4095 



21 

sulaof Florida, which Spain could not or would not control. To 
protect ourselves, we had to control the peninsula, and in addition 
to this imperative fact we needed the peninsula of Florida for the 
national defense. We needed to control its shores, lapped as they 
are by the waters of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Our 
treaty of cession also provided that Florida should have statehood. 

Do any of the arguments or any of these conditions applicable 
to Florida apply to the Philippines? 

President Monroe also had ideas abotit our General Government 
that the expansionist of to-day will hardly approve. He said: 

The impractioability of one consolidated (iovernnipnt for this great and 

f rowing: nation will be more apparent and will be universally admitted, 
ncapable of exercising local authority except for general purposes, the 
General Government will no longer be dreaded. 

Will the expansionist of to-day admit the impracticability of a 
consolidated Government, when they propose to have such a Gov- 
ernment control and govern more than lO.OOD.UOU people? Will 
the expansionist of to-day admit the incapacity of the General 
Government to exercise local authority except for general pur- 
poses, when they propose to have the General Government exercise 
both general and local authority for millions of subject people? 

There are other expressions from the fathers of old that accord 
with the position of those who oppose the permanent retention of 
the Philippines, but do not accord with those who favor such 
retention. Fillmore declared, in his first annual message: 

Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses 
of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive 
to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as 
circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to 
its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for them- 
selves, and they readily concede it to others. We make no wars to promote 
or to prevent successions to thrones, to maintain any theory of a balance of 
power, or to suppress the actual government which any country chooses to 
establish for itself. 

The seritiments herein expressed met the approval of every 
American heart when they were uttered, and I can not believe 
that such sentiments are not in accord with American feeling 
and American sentiment to-day. And yet this Government is 
engaged in refusing to the Filipinos the right to their own form 
of government, and with force of arms is engaged in suppressing 
the actual government which the Filipinos chose to establish for 
themselves. How the mighty have fallen from their high estate! 
When our President of to-day comes to write of the Filipinos, 
will he quote with approval this message of President Fillmore? 

There are those who profess now to believe that the Declaration 
of Independence no longer exists for our guidance and control. 
They profess to believe that we have passed the day when we 
should be moved by the sentiments and the principles enunciated 
in that immortal Declaration. They profess to believe that it has 
never been a part of our Government; but that, for all practical 
purposes, it perished with the creation of our Constitution. Such 
thoughts and such sentiments have not always existed. As late 
as the Administration of President Taylor the Declaration of 
Independence was alive, as listen to his message referring to the 
proposal to qualify the terms of California as a State. He .^aid: 

In attempting to deny to the people of this State the right of self- 

fovernment in a matter which peculiarly aflEects themselves will intallibly 
e regarded by them as an invasion of their rights, and upon the principle 
laid down in our own Declaration of Independence they will certainly be 
sustained by the great mass of the American people. 
4095 



He further asserted in this message another doctrine that 1 
assume is totallj' repugnant to the expansionist of to-day. He said: 

To assert that they are a conquei-ed people, and must, as a state, submit 
to the will of theii- conquerors in this regard, will meet with no cordial re- 
sponse among American freemen. 

Is not the position of our Administration to-day in reference to 
the Filipinos that until they admit that they are a conquered peo- 
ple we will not even deign to tell them what we intend to do with 
them? Where in all our history is there a parallel to such a 
position? 

A distinguished gentleman who was elected to this House to sit 
on this side of the Chamber, but who. as I understand him. has 
voluntarily elected to be known as belonging to the other side, has 
called our attention to the fact that Mr. Buchanan, whom he saj's 
is t)ie last Democratic President we have had. was an expansion- 
ist and favored the purchase of Cuba. I am glad that our friend 
has referred us to this fact, because it furnishes the opportunity 
to give to the House the benefit of the views entertained by Mr. 
Buchanan, and I commend these views to the careful considera- 
tion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and all his compatriots 
upon the other side. Mr. Buchanan said in a message: 

It has been made known to the world by my predecessors that the United 
States have on several occasions endeavored to acquire Cuba from Spain by 
honorable negotiation. If this were accomplished the last relic of the Afri- 
can slave trade would instantly disappear. We would not. if we could, ac- 
quire Cuba in any other manner. This is due to our national character. All 
the territory that we have acquired since the origin of the Government has 
been by fair purchase from France, Spain, and Mexico, or by the free and 
voluntary act of the independent State of Texas in blending her destinies 
with our own. 

In his inaugural address he said: 

It is our glory that whilst other nations have extended their dominion by 
the sword we have never acquired any territory except by fair purchase, or, 
as in the case of Texas, by the voluntary determination of a brave, kindred, 
and independent people to blend their destinies with our own. 

He also said: 

Our past history forbids that we shall in the future acquire territory un- 
less this be sanctioned by the laws of justice and honor. 

How will the record of our acquisitions stand when we are 
through putting the Filipinos to the sword and have seized their 
land as our own? 

Alaska is sometimes referred to as a precedent for the annexa- 
tion of the Philippines, but, aside from the fact that Alaska is not 
contiguous territory, there is no parallel in the two cases. In the 
first place, Ala.ska at the time of annexation was unpopulated, and 
the annexation was of land and not of people. Even to-day the 
last estimated population of Alaska, as furnished in the last An- 
nual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, shows a population, all 
told, of only oS.OO-l, and this thirty-two years after aimexation. Is 
there any parallel between this and the annexation of ten or twelve 
million human souls in the Philippines? 

A further and more striking difference lies in the fact that it is 
con(;eded that whenever Alaska is prepared for it she will be ad- 
mitted to statehood. Nobody disputes this. Congress has recog- 
nized Alaska as a part of the United States by enacting legislation 
for it. and Congress can not legislate for any country that is not 
a part of the United States, and no country can be a part of the 
United States and not be under the protection of its laws and Con- 
stitution. In the act of 181(8 in reference to Alaska Congress dis- 
tinctly recognized the right of statehood in Alaska by declaring 
4095 



23 

toat this act should not be construed '« as impairing in any degree 
the title ot any State that may hereafter be erected out of said 
district or any part thereof to tide lands and beds of any of its 
navigable waters," etc. 

In my opinion, however, Alaska furnishes an ob.iect lesson 
against the permanent retention of the Philippines and against a 
colonial pohcy. Our government of the Territory of Alaska 
demonstrates the inadequacy of our system to govern and care 
for a dependent and subject people. Thetheory of our Government 
18 that there are no rulers but the people. There is no provision 
and no place and no power to govern except by the people. When 
we undertake to say that " we, the citizens." will govern "you, 
the subjects," we find no machinery at our disposal, and the re- 
sult is misgovernment. It is worse: it is anarchy. 

As an illustration of how Alaska is governed, the Secretary of 
the Interior, in his last annual report, says: 

Attention is called to the anomalous condition of the land laws in tlio dis- 
trict. There are no surveyed lands, nor has any system of surveying been 
grovided, rendering it next to impossible for a poor settler to acquire a 
omestead. Citizens who have resided in the district for thirtv-two years 
nave as yet been unable to secure title to the lands they have occupied. 

Think of it! For thirty-two years we have owned Alaska, and 
yet to-day no citizen of that district has b.en able to acquire a 
title to the land that he has bought, occupied, and improved. 
[Applause. ] What greater commentary upon our incompetency 
to provide for a subject people could be suggested? The people 
must provide for themselves, or their wants and needs will never 
be satisfied. 

But listen further. The Attorney-General, in his last annual 
report, says: 

The administration of affairs in Alaska, and especially the administration 
of justice through the courts and court officers assigned to that Territory, 
la not satisfactory. There has been during the past year a very great in- 
crease in the amount of legal business in Alaska. The report of the district 
attorney shows that the criminal business has doubled within a year, and 
the civil business has multiplied five times over. Complaints ot the inad- 
equacy of the provision to establish law and order are almost universal. 
The district judge advises me that because of a lack of time not one-tenth of 
the business presented can be disposed of. Officers of the Army exercising 
command in the Territory report that the insufficient apjiropriations for the 
Department of Justice and the lack of a sufficient force of court officiala 
render the administration of justice along the Yukon abortive, and that the 
average citizen dwelling in that region has but very little respect for it. 

Here we have it stated that after thirty-two years of our admin- 
istration we have not provided the means to dispose of one-tenth 
of the business brought to our courts, that complaints of the inade- 
quacy of our i^ro visions to establish law and order are almost uni- 
versal, and that our administration of justice — American justice, 
if you please, of which v/e boast — is such that it inspires no respect 
among- the natives. Can we wonder that the town of Wrangell 
has asked to be transferred to Canada, has asked to be trans- 
planted from underneath the sheltering folds of our glorious flag, 
simply because that Hag as it floats in Alaska does not mean good 
government, good laws, and justice? 

Can we wonder that this state of affairs exists when Governor 
Bradley, of the Territory, is (luoted as saying: 

There are 60 men in charge of the government of the Territory. They 
have no interest in Alaska, except to grab what they can and get away. They 
are like a hungry lot of codfish. Seven of these officials, 11 per cent of the 
entire government, are now under indictment for malfeasance in office. 

Is not this but a repetition of the world's history that men can 

4095 



24 

not be trusted to rule an alien people in an alim land, where they 
have no interest to subserve save the emoluments of office? 

What stronger argument can be offered against a colonial gov- 
ernment than this statement of facts reveals? [Apj^lause.] 

As further illustrating our want of proper machinery to govern 
colonies, we have immediately before us the deplorable condition 
of affairs in Hawaii. We annexed these islands more than a year 
and a half ago. We have not yet given them a Territorial form of 
government, and in the formative period of their existence we 
have not provided them with any laws by which they can main- 
tain themselves. Their legislature became extinguished with the 
ratification of the treaty of annexation, and now, with the bubonic 
plague devastating their land, carrying suffering, want, and death 
m its wake, tliere is no power to authorize tne expenditure of 
money in providing treatment and in attempting to crush the dis- 
ease. We are told by the newspapers that the President and his 
Cabinet have been anxiously consulting in reference to the condi- 
tion of these people and have been seriously trying to devise some 
way for their immediate relief. It must be apparent to everyone 
that, in order to govern a subject people, there must be arbitrary 
power lodged somewhere that can act quickly. There is no place 
under our Constitution where such power can be lodged; and if 
Congress undertakes to vest it anywhere, it must do so without 
warrant or authority from the Constitution and without regard 
for the first principles of freedom, for it has been well said that 
"the history of the world has been written in vain if it does not 
teach us that unrestrained authority can never be safely trusted 
in human hands." 

Mr. Chairman, Alaska and Hawaii are not the only instances in 
the history of this Republic that have demonstrated the folly and 
the wrong of a republic attempting to govern any people except by 
democratic methods. Here in this Union the Southern Statea 
have known the effect of such a government. The people of the 
South know what it is to be governed without their consent. 
They bitterly know the horror, the injustice, and the iniquity that 
such a government entails. They know what it is to have no 
voice in their affairs, to be taxed without representation, to be 
governed by aliens, and to have military rule supplant the civil 
law. I mention these things not to awaken unpleasant memories 
or to reopen wounds or to scar afresh old sores that burrowed deep 
in the flesh. The memory of these things is fast dying out, and I 
would not revive it. nor do my people desire that I should do so; 
but I mention them to emphasize the statement that as a repre- 
sentative of these people I will never by my vote or voice con- 
sent to put such a government upon any of Gods people in any 
clime, beneath any sun, in any part of this earth. [Applause.] 

I would not do it as a matter of sentiment for the subject peo- 
ple, but, above and beyond this sentiment, I would not do it for 
love of the American people and American institutions, because I 
believe that to do so would be to set a precedent that in its effect 
would ultimately overthrow the liberties of our own people. If 
there be no other way to govern the people of the Philippines ex- 
cept through despotic and arbitrary government, and if we are de- 
termined to govern them, then let us amend the Constitution 
before we undertake such a government, for I believe with Wash- 
ington that — 

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the con- 
stitutional i)owers be In any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amend- 
4095 



25 



SlnyVy^usuKoWo^-%'^'°°'V*^*^'?°i*'«'^» But let there be no 

treelovelnmenlar^'Aestvoyel '' '' '^"^ '•"«tomary weapon by which 

««>^/r?r!if^^?.i''^?'*^./'^*^ ^^""'^^ Webster a military republic, and, 
morJthS h^lf.*^'" r'''°* discussion. I recall iis utterance of 
more than half a century ago. when he pronounced— 

onl^ bv thllwo^d^ n^ « government founded on mock elections and supported 
ment from the old fP^^,^^^!"'*"'^' ^Y^ as a retrograde and disastrous move- 
meui, irom tne old-tashioned monarchical systems. 

And I recall that at the same time he declared: 

of"'RiXQH'n*lfv,w"*'Y^ must be kept, according to the language of our Bill 
son if n^; h^f >f f * s"bordmation to our civil authority. Whoiv ver t his les- 
A-?c, 1-? * '"'*^ learned and practiced there (^an be "no pnietical freedom 
^r^v f.^; ,^;:fPostejous. a scoff and a satire on free forms of\v,n,s it t .nall^ 
!^fi?/^? ' %™^^ °f government to be prescribed by military leaders and the 
right of suffrage to be exercised at the point of the sword. ""'"""^^ ^^""^ ^'^^ 

Mr Chairman, speaking for myself, I do not want the Philip- 
pine Islands either out oi the Constitution or under it. I do not 
wish to have them as a part of this Union. In passing, however 
1 would say that with a declaration proposing to admit Puerto 
Kico ultimately into statehood I would interpose no objection to 
permanently retaining it. provided the people of Puerto Rico de- 
sire us to keep them. I would interpose no objection either to 
Cuba, under the same conditions, becoming a part of this Union 
These islands are differently situated from the Philippines. They 
are within the legitimate sphere of our influence; they are within 
the Western Hemisphere, and they lie almost at our door. They 
may be of strategical value to us. We would violate none of our 
time-honored principles in annexing them. The .Monroe doctrine 
would not be interfered with. We could defend them far easier 
from hostile invasion than we could defend the Philippines, and 
we could perhaps the better protect the Atlantic coast from the 
invasion of yellow fever by annexing them. 

I am opposed to forcibly annexing any people, and it is incon- 
ceivable to my mind that this country, foasling of its free insti- 
tutions and glorying in its past achievements for liberty, should 
commit itself to the attempt to force its flag over an unwilling 
people. [Applause.] 

I am opposed to retaining the Philippines because I am opposed 
to a large standing army. Before the war with Spain an army of 
25,000 men was as large as we needed. It was ample to meet all 
the needs of a free people. The war with Spain necessitated an 
increase in this army, and yet. although this war ended more than 
a year ago, the taxpayers are still supporting a great army, and 
all because of the Philippines. No man to-day can tell when this 
army will be disbanded; no man can predict when what we are 
pleased to call the "insurrection "' in the Philippines will end, and 
no man can say how long it will stay ended whenever an end is 
reached. The history of these islands offer us but little hope that 
we could with safety withdraw our army, even though peace 
with them should be declared. The retention of these islands, it 
seems to me, therefore makes the retention of the army a neces- 
sity, and upon the other hand, no man will deny the proposition 
that with the release of the islands the army will not be neces- 
sary. 

I am opposed to retaining these islands because of the expense. 
It is .stated that the normal cost of the Government prior to the 
war with Spain was, in round numbers, $5 per capita, and it is 
now stated that this expense is $8 per capita. We thus have an 

4095 



26 

increase of $5 per capita, or a total of ovei' $200,000,000 per year, 
ami all because we own the Philippines and the foolish natives of 
the islands have disputed our title. The war taxes are still col- 
lected, although peace is declared. These taxes fall upon every 
home and every workshop. Their imposition has already lasted 
too long, and the burden they entail should be lifted instead of 
being permanently fastened upon our people, as the retention of 
these islands will necessitate. 

I am opposed to retaining the Philippines because I am opposed 
to a one-man government in any land that flies the United States 
flag. I do not believe in centralizing power in the White House. 
I do not believe in enlarging the already too great power that is 
now vested there. I do not believe in a strong centralized gov- 
ernment. 

I believe that those people are governed best who are governed 
least, and I believe that "the powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are 
reserved to the States respectively or to the people." I have no 
faith in the tlieory that has been suggested that the government 
we would estabiisii in the Philippines would be so clean, so pure, 
and so able that its. image reflected back to us would make this 
Government more pure, more clean, and more al)le. Rather than 
this. I fear that an autocratic government there would eventually 
result in an autocratic government here. If self-government can 
be denied in any one part of the United States it can be denied in 
all parts. If we accustom ourselves to the use of arbitrary power 
in one place.it will become natural and easy to use it in all places. 
When we consent to a government of the Filipinos, who have 
become a part of the United States, at the point of the baj^onet, 
let all patriots remember that at the same time we are increasing 
the number of bayonets. As we increase despotic power we must 
remember that at the same time we are increasing the armed 
force to maintain it. Is not this dangerous, desperate ground to 
enter upon? The part of prudence and the part of safety is to 
withdraw from it before it is everlastingly too late. 

Learned gentlemen and able gentlemen have talked about the 
inherent powers of this Government. We hear it claimed that 
whether the Constitution provides for it or not, this Govern- 
ment possesses the same powers of all other great govern- 
ments. Mr. Chairman, this Government has no power that the 
Constitution does not delegate to it; for, by the language of the 
Constitution, all other powers not so delegated are prohibited. If 
the framers of this Government had supposed that in its creation 
they were giving to it the despotic powers of the governments of 
old, would they ever have established it? Thev were seeking to 
escape from such powers. They sought here in the New World 
to found a new government, and, ignoring all precedents, they 
blazed a way of their own. They profited by the experience of 
past governments and eschewed the vicious elements of all those 
governments from theirs. 

The foundation upon which they laid their structure was free- 
dom, and upon this foundation they reared a superstructure dedi- 
cated to liberty. It is now seriously proposed after a century of 
eijjerience with this Government to deliberately remove the foun- 
dation upon which it is built, and to assert that the wise fathers 
of old had framed a government ivith all the despotic powers of 
the (Jld World. The proposition, it seems to me, is monstrous. 

4(J9j 



L'7 

Unless our forefathers blumlered in their work, and it has taken 
one hundred j-ears to find it out, if true, the United States Gov- 
ernment can not do anj'thing that any other government can and 
still be the United States. 

I have no patience with those who claim the hand of destiny ia 
guiding us in the Philippine question. Tliose people who so claim 
are simply uninformed as to the facts. It was not the hand of 
destiny that in August, 1898, cabled to Admiral Dewey, saying: 

The President desires to receive from you any important information you 
may have of the Philippines, the desirability of the sovoral islands, * * * 
and, in a naval or commercial sense, which would be the most advantageous. 

That telegram was sent from the Navy Department by direction 
of the President. There is nothing of destiny in it. There is no 
suggestion of a derelict people drifting into our liands for whom 
we must provide. It is a cold-blooded business inquiry. It was 
not the hand of destiny but the hand of our Secretary of State 
that, on July 30, 1898, named as the third condition that the United 
States would require of Spain, in the event of a cessation of hos- 
tilities, that — 

On similar grounds the United States is entitled to occupy and will hold 
the city, bay, and harbor of Manila pending the conclusion of the treaty of 

Feace which shall determine the control, disposition, and government of the 
hilippines. 

Destiny did not make itself manifest until after the cablegram 
to Admiral Dewey had been answered and our peace commission- 
ers had gone to work to perfect the treaty and had received their 
instructions to demand the Philippines. The whole transaction 
was one of business, of barter and sale, without the intervention of 
destiny. It yet remains to be seen whether the business deal, as 
it was finally consummated, will be ratified by the American 
people. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States is not the civilizer of the 
world. We wish that all countries had our civilization and that 
they all had a government like ours. The only way, however, 
that we can assist them to obtain that which we have is to keep 
ever before them an ideal government in all its pristine purity and 
glory. We can teach them by example and by precept, but we 
can not teach them by force. I can well understand how the 
course we have pursued so far in reference to the Philippines has 
created alarm among civilized people everywhere. An English 
writer in the London Chronicle says: 

If we express our disappointment as Englishmen that our American kins- 
folk are apparently following our example, it is because in the matter of the 
rights of every people to govern themselves we had looked up to them as 
about to show us the bettor way by respecting the aspirations toward free- 
dom even of less advanced races, and by acting in accordance with their own 
noble traditions and republican principles. 

The noble and disinterested purposes for which we declared 
> war against Spain raised the United States to the topmost pinna- 
cle of the great and humane governments of the world. If we 
had but lived up to the renown we then won. or if we woiild live 
up to it now, in my humble opinion we would accomplish more 
for freedom, more for good government, more for humanity, and 
more for the United States than all our armies in a century of 
time can hope to accomplish. 

Mr. Chairman, in all that I have said I have not discussed the 
Filipinos themselves. My concern has not been for them, but for 
as. I have had no intention, and have none now, by anything 

409 



28 

that I say to encourage them in their hopeless fight I liave no 
fear of doing so, beceuse no feeble words of mine could add to the 
eloquent words of freedom and of liberty that line the archives of 
our nation from tlic Declaration of Independence until now, and 
no act of mine could stir a patriotic heart as the history of our 
glorious deeds, achieved in freedom's name, must already stir it. 
1 believe that the Filipinos should submit, if for no other reason 
than because they can not succeed. I believe they can accom- 
plish more bv peaceful methods than by arms, and yet I trust that 
I will be pardoned if I say that a careful reading of all the infor- 
mation furnished us about them shows that, notwithstanding all 
statements to the contrary, they seek and crave liberty. The ex- 
cellent gentlemen composing the peace commission sent by the 
President to the Philippines say a great many things m their re- 
port, and among these things I find this statement: 

While the people of tho Philippine Islands ardently desire a full measure 
of rights and liberties, they do not, iu the opinion of the coniuiission, gener- 
ally desire independence. * * * Tho Philippine Islands, even the most 
patriotic deelare, can not at the present time standalone. They need the 
tutelage and the jirotection of tho United States, but they need it m order 
that in due time thev may, in their opinion, become self-governing and in- 
dependent, for it would be a misrepresentation of facts not to report that 
ultimate independence -independence after an indefinite period of American 
training-is the aspiration and goal of the intelligent Filipinos who to-day 
so strenuously oppose the suggestions of independence at the present time. 

We know, Mr. Chairman, that Aguinaldo and his followers de- 
sire independence, because they have asked for it and are now 
fighting for it. and here we have the statement of our commission 
that the balance of the Filipinos also desire it. Who is promising 
it to them? Who is holding out any hope that at any time in the 
future their aspirations will be granted? 

I am opposed, Mr. Chairman, to the retention of the Philip- 
pines, because I am opposed to this Government acquiring any 
territory in the Eastern Hemisphere. To retain these islands 
would mean our entrance into and participation in the ever-arising 
and ever-perplexing questions of the East. It would convert us 
from a peace-loving into a warlike nation. The Eastern world, in 
dealing with questions of government, recognizes only the law of 
might. This is made manifest in the large and ever-increasing 
armament of the countries of the Old World. Invading, as we 
would be, the territory of the Old World governments, who can 
say that we could maintain ourselves there and avoid entangle- 
ments or alliances with other nations? I am not yet ready to do 
this. I am not yet ready to reverse the declaration of our policy 
made by Jefferson when he said: 

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alli- 
ances with none. 

Nor am I yet ready to discard and refute the parting words and 
advice of the first President of this Republic when he said: 

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very re- 
mote relation. Hence she must be engaged in f reciuent controversies, the 
causi's of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it 
must be unwi.se in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary 
vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her 
friendships or enmities. Our detarlied aiid distant situation invites and en- 
ables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people*, under an 
etticient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material 
injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will 
cause the ni'Utrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously 
respected: when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making ac- 
quisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard tho giving us provocation; when 
we may choose peace or war as our interest, guided by justice, shall counseL 

4095 



29 

To retain these islands would mean not only a large standing 
army for the purpose of upholding our Government among the 
islanders, but it would also mean such an arm}' for the purpose of 
defending them from outside interference. It would mean a great 
army and a great navy, because these islands are so far removed 
from our shores that we could not rely upon our volunteer forces 
to defend them. We would have to be ever ready for war, just as 
all Europe is to-day. 

In the research that I have made on this great question, Mr. 
Chairman, I have not lost sight of the materialistic argument that 
has been presented in favor of the permanent retention of these 
islands, and, while I have reached the conclusion that the view 
thus presented has been exaggerated and has been given more im- 
portance than the facts justify, yet I am frank to say that no con- 
sideration of commerce or of gold, and no thirst for empire ought, 
m my opinion, to be weighed in the balance against the Constitu- 
tion and liberty and the perpetuation of our free institutions. 

Some part of this Government, however, invested with power, 
has been pandering to whatever of cupidity there may be in our 
natures in the style of literature with which they have supplied 
us. I have received Government publications which set forth in 
glowing language the rich stores of gold and of silver, of coal, of 
iron, and of copper to be found in the Philippine Islands, and de- 
scribing the great fertility of the soil, and pointing out the mar- 
velous results that American energy and American money can 
achieve in these islands. When I come to read, however, that 
portion of this literature devoted to the facts, I find that the for- 
eign commerce in these islands in 1894 was as much as it was ever 
known to be, and that in this year it amounted to only $23,558,553 
of imports and $33,149,984 of exports. In the tables for other 
years the figures are smaller. 

When we remember that if we handle this entire commerce, 
both exports and imports, we could only expect a legitimate profit 
out of it, we can realize what a pitiful return we would get for 
our great investment of money, leaving out of consideration en- 
tirely the precious American lives that have been sacrificed and 
will be sacrificed to obtain it. Why, sir, if the entire commerce, 
both exports and imports— not the profits, but the entire com- 
merce—came to us as a gift, it would not pay the expenses of our 
Army alone, and would leave totally unprovided for the expenses 
of the civil government. 

I find also in the budget of revenues and expenses for these 
islands for the year 1897 that the total income is placed at $17,- 
474,020, and the total expenses at $17,258,145. and I notice that 
included in the income and assisting to make the total are, 
proceeds of monopolies $1,222,000, and lottery $1,000,000. Spain 
is charged with resorting to every expedient and every ingenuity 
to wring money from these people, and yet, with all "this, barely 
enough is yielded to support the government. With our more 
beneficent government— and I assume that it would be more benef- 
icent—and with our refusal to license monopolies and lotteries, 
how would we provide the necessary revenue to conduct our Gov- 
ernment? 

If we assume the responsibility for the destiny of these people, 
I suppose it would be a part of our mission to teach them the wa3rs 
of civilization, to educate them, and lead them up to the higher 
and better walks of life. Where would the money come from 
with which to do it? I am told that we now expend about 30 

4095 



30 

cents per capita on our Imlian wards. I do not know that the 
figures are correct, but sui)pose we only expend 10 cents per capita 
eacli year on the Filipinos, it would take, in round numbers, 
$1.0UIM)00 per year lor this purpose alone. It seems to me, there- 
fore, that in reaching out for the commerce of these islands, so far 
from materially benefiting our people, we will entail a sore and 
grievous burden upon them; in my opinion, such a burden as no 
lawof reason or of prudence or of Providence requires at our hands. 
Reading further from the literature furnished us. I learn that 
in the year 1SU4 about 00 per cent of the foreign trade of these 
islands "was carried in British ves.se!s and only 20 per cent in 
Spanish vessels. 1 learn also that Great Britain was the largest 
consumer of the products of these islands and that we. the United 
States, consumed three times as much of these products as did 
Spain. It is true that the gentleman compiling these figures goes 
on to say that — 

With these islands in our possession, and the construction of railroads in 
the interior of Luzon, it is probable that an enormous extension could b* 
given to this commerce, nearly all of which would come to the United States. 

Perhaps it would, and perhaps it would not. It is a free guess 
for anybody. The fact, however, that is made manifest by these 
figures, is that in 1894, when we did not own the Philippines, they 
exported to us three times as much of their products as they ex- 
ported to Spain and exported more to Great Britain than they 
did to us. 

Do not these figui'es demonstrate that it is a fallacy that we must 
own a country and a people in order to trade with them? If w© 
furnish the best market for the Filipinos, will we not buy their 
goods whether we own them or not? And if they furnish us the 
best market for our ])roducts, we will sell to them no matter what 
flag tliey fly. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is strange to me that at 
this time of all times our people or any portion of them should 
have conceived the idea that to extend our commerce we must ex- 
tend our territory, because it has been so recent that we had our 
attention called to the enormous volume of our foreign commerce. 
The President in his annual message informs us that — 

The combined imports and exports for the year are the largest ever shown 
in a single year in all our history. Our exports for 1899 alone exceed by more 
than a billion dollars our imports and exports combined in 1870. The imports 
per capita are 20 per cent less than in 1870, while the exports per ca])ita are 
58 per cent more than in 1870. Exports of agricultural products were 
$784.77i;.l-t2. Of manufactured products we exported in value $339,593,146, 
being larger than any previous year. It is a noteworthy fact that the only 
year in all our history when the products of our manufactories sold abroad 
exceeded those bought abroad were 1898 and ISIW. 

I do not think this the time for any comment upon these figures 
other than upon the remarkable showing they make of our growing 
export trade. I will leave to some other occasion to discuss the 
question of whetiier or not the decrease in our importations has 
been due to the advance in the height of our tarifl:' wall, or as to 
whether this decrease is to the sulistantial interests of the con- 
sumers of the country, or as to whether the increase in our trade 
generally is due to natural or to artificial causes. I wish now 
merely to call attenti(m to the fact that in the face of this state- 
ment, showing our enormous export trade with people who owe 
UP no allegiance and who do not fly our flag, there are still those 
who say that we must, in order to increase our export trade, own 
colonies and govern a dependent people. Such a proposition, in 
the light of these figtires. seems to be absurd. 

40! 15 



31 

There IS otiier information, however, that we get from the lit- 
erature furnished us that is interestin.tj:. We are pointed to these 
islands as olfermga great field for development, as being a wilder- 
ness of riches as it were, ready for the hand of America merely to 
reach out and take in, and yet in the column of facts we are ad- 
vised that m the island of Luzon there are now 79 people to each 
square mile: in the island of Leyte, 71; Negros, 73; Panay. ir.r,; 
±5ohol Ihb; and Zebu, 210; and we are also told that these six 
islands comprise the principal islands in all the archipelago This 
literature further ofBcially informs us that the density of popula- 
fV,^ t^ese SIX islands is 50 per cent greater than it is in the btates 
ot Illinois and Indiana, and is greater than that of any of our 
btates east of the Rocky Mountains except Massachusetts and 
Khode Island. 

We are told, however, that these islands will support a much 
lai-ger population than they now have; that the population now is 
onlyabout one half as great asit is in France and one-third as great 
as it IS in China and Japan. It would be useless to deny this last 
proposition. It may be true or it may not be true; the proposi- 
tion 18 speculation pure and simple. If it be true, however, it must 
ot necessity be equally true that far greater populations can be 
maintained in our States than now exist. It follows that if we 
have a surplus of energy and a surplus of capital, we can find 
liere withm our own domain riper fields to exploit, abetter climate 
m which to live, and a more homogeneous people to dwell among 
Here the hope of success is greater and the chances of failure 
smaller. 

I can understand, Mr. Chairman, how individuals or corpora- 
tions, few m number, could obtain franchises, rights, and con- 
cessions in these islands and exploit the islands to their own sat- 
isfaction and to their own profit. I can still better understand 
how this could be done under an arbitrary and despotic govern- 
ment, with the people exercising no rights and having no power 
to protect themselves; but I fail to see how our Government or 
our taxpayers can realize anything from the venture, and I can 
not give my consent to overturn precedents, traditions, and even 
our organic law itself to the end simply that a few favored mo- 
nopolies and individuals may wax and grow fat at the expense of 
the people. 

Mr. Chairman, I have said that the question I was endeavoring 
to discuss was not political. I still maintain that proposition, and 
yet gentlemen here and elsewhere have now and then felt called 
upon to refer to the Democratic party as the party of expansion, 
and to point to accessions of territory in the past under Demo- 
cratic Administrations, and have felt it their dutv to suggest that 
Democrats now who oppose the retention of the Philippine Islands 
are backslidden from the faith of their fathers and deserters from 
the traditional policy of their party. I respectfully dissent from 
this view. I believe, and have endeavored to demonstrate, that 
those who look upon this question as I do are as true to the poli- 
cies and traditions and the faith of the Democratic party as any 
who in the days gone by have marched beneath its banner. 

I would remind gentlemen who thus attempt to taunt us of the 
fate that uniformly befell those who in the past offered such taunts. ■ 
This is not the first time taunts of this kind have been made, and 
yet through the changing vicissitudes of time Democratic members 
have been returned here by Democratic constituencies. The rec- 
ords disclose to me that the attitude of the Democratic party on 
4095 




013 744 717 4 

32 

the expansion of territory in the past was just as violently and 
bitterly assailed at the time as is now the attitude of its member- 
ship ou the pending question, and yet time and reason vindicated 
and sustained its position, and overwhelmed those who opposed 
it, and forced them to the acknowledijment that they were wrong; 
and so, Mr. Chairman, I believe that those who scotf and jeer to- 
day at our position will in the days to come be forced to admit 
their error and their wrong, just as their predecessors in the past 
have been compelled to do. 

My hope is that their repentance will not have to be in sack- 
cloth and in ashes at the feet of a crushed and overturned Repub- 
lic. The Democratic party has stood in the past and stands to-day 
for expansion— expansion of territory, of commerce, and of free- 
dom, and of all things that are good and great. Wherever under 
its administration this country has expanded its territory it has 
carried freedom, liberty, and the Constitution with it. The Demo- 
cratic party has always believed that " forcible annexation was 
criminal aggression and not to be thought of." [Applause.] It 
has believed in "benevolent assimilation" in fact as well as in 
theory. It has never in the past stood for expansion of territory 
at the expense of freedom. It has never stood for the curtailment 
of libertj' that commerce might expand. [Applause.] 

It has never waged a war of conquest. It has never sought by 
force i)f arms to subject an alien peojile. It has never stood for 
empire or for colonies, and, so far as I can read the signs of the 
times, it stands to-day where it has ever stood — the foe of oppres- 
sion, the enemy of tyranny, the friend of liberty, and the cham- 
pion of progress. But, Mr. Chairman, regardless of party or. 
party history, when temptation comes to us as a republic and 
cupidity and avarice arise within us, when great riches seem 
temptingly near and dreams of imperial splendor dazzle us, we 
must invoke the aid of the true American spirit and cling to the 
Constitution with tenacious energy as the sheet anchor of our 
liberties. If we do not this, we are undone, and that which we have 
we will have no more, and that which we receive will be but dust 
and bitterness. [Loud applause.] 
4095 

o 



